“… the [Washington] Post summation makes clear that the mainstream press had almost nothing to do with uncovering the truth or advancing the story [of Hillary's email scandal]. …

So says Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) in an erudite op-ed headline story entitled “Clinton Email Scandal: How A Biased Press Tried To Ignore It.” Is it acceptable — even surprising — for many mainstream media titans to have willfully attempted to manipulate the outcome of a U.S. presidential election? Obviously, it is not acceptable — and I see more bias in “journalism” now than I ever have in my life. If Hillary Clinton were an average American, i.e., not a member of powerful dynastic family nor a former holder of high office, she would have already been indicted for damaging national security — at least have been forced to withdraw her candidacy for the U.S. presidency. (Our current two-party system has created many obstacles to prevent “little” or “average” people from getting anywhere near a position in high public office.) IBD editors paint a detailed, sordid, and well-documented portrait of America’s news media blatantly clearing a path for Hillary, whom they knew was and is most likely a felon, to become President of the United States:

… No one reading the [Washington] Post’s 5,000-word account can come away thinking that the Clinton email scandal is unimportant.

The FBI now has 147 agents chasing down leads. A key person involved in the scandal has been granted immunity. Hillary Clinton — who has already been caught in several lies — might be questioned by federal agents. There are fairly obvious violations of the law, even if it’s just those governing record-keeping. And there were, and continue to be, concerns that national security secrets were compromised, or at least casually disregarded. …

IBD does rightfully credit the Washington Post for reporting so thoroughly on Clinton’s flagrant flaunting of national security protocols. IBD itself appears 5th in a list of the “Top 5 U.S. Daily Newspapers with Paywalls” and 11th in a list of the “Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspaper Digital Editions.” We do thankfully still have at least some semblance of a free press. It is ironic that most media bias is driven by a philosophical/political agenda or plain greed, and is generally not a result of government coercion.

Hillary’s ability to, at least so far, walk on water is a symptom of the sad state of affairs in American politics: 1) too many citizens have disengaged from voting and grassroots activism, willfully or passively shirking their civic duty to protect democracy; and, 2) because citizens have disengaged, the U.S. has developed a professional political elite class, beholden mostly to the lobbyists with the fattest wallets and seeking to stay in office forever. George Orwell concluded his brilliant treatise Animal Farm with these words (you can read the whole book here):

… All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. … Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

As a nation, we’ve allowed some citizens to be more equal than others. We’ve allowed certain power-hungry individuals to obtain much more control over fellow citizens than our Founders intended (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”). Letting another Clinton walk upon water would be an enormous mistake and would set a very undemocratic precedent. But there still may be hope.

Our national government still has some checks and balances. When Hillary and then-Senator Barack Obama were vying against each other for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, the two candidates and campaigns often traded vitriolic and acrimonious barbs. These solar system-sized egos bruise easily. Hillary has often distanced herself from Obama during the current 2016 race. The FBI is currently conducting a large-scale investigation of Clinton. As headlines continually announce new revelations of Hillary’s alleged crimes, the pressure will mount on the White House to steer clear of meddling with the FBI’s investigation:

A former U.S. attorney predicted this week that Hillary Clinton “will not make it to the finish line” in 2016 because she will soon be facing a criminal indictment from the FBI. During an appearance on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Tuesday, famed attorney Joseph DiGenova said that the FBI has “reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff” and predicted that it would come to a head “in the next 60 days.”

DiGenova, who rose to national prominence during the Clinton scandals of the ’90s, told Ingraham that if Attorney General Loretta Lynch refuses to indict Clinton, there will be a “massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an Attorney General.”

FBI Director James Comey has not indicated when his agents will wrap up their months-long probe into Clinton’s possibly illegal “homebrew” email server, but during a Senate hearing last month, he said the FBI doesn’t “give a rip about politics” and that President Obama has not been briefed on the investigation.

DiGenova said that the FBI already “has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this.” …

Hillary’s “Emailgate” is ethically too big to sweep under the carpet. Will it be too big politically to sweep under the rug?

A defiant Juanita Broaddrick told Breitbart on Wednesday that she is revisiting her rape allegations against Bill Clinton in hopes of educating a generation of young Americans on the former president’s sordid history with women.

She also slammed Hillary as “disgusting” for allegedly attempting to silence Broaddrick years ago while the Democratic frontrunner insisted in a recent campaign ad that women have a right to be believed if they accuse men of sexual assault.

“I’m 73 years old, Aaron. Why would I want to bring this on myself other than to do right? So many people don’t really know. They weren’t around then. I think now they are waking up. When they see a woman abused and is coming forward I think it’s going to mean a lot.”

… the notoriously media-shy Broaddrick accused Clinton of complacency in covering up her husband’s alleged sexual crimes and indiscretions.

“I think she has always known everything about him. I think they have this evil compact between the two of them that they each know what the other does and overlook it. And go right on. And cover one for the other,” she said.

She recalled a personal meeting with Hillary in 1978, in which, Broaddrick believes, the future First Lady strongly implied the alleged rape victim must stay silent about her traumatic experience. …

What’s going on at the site of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre? Is this really about “respect” or is the area being sanitized? Food for thought:

Contractors demolishing Sandy Hook Elementary School are being required to sign confidentiality agreements forbidding public discussion of the site, photographs or disclosure of any information about the building where 26 people were fatally shot last December.

Selectman Will Rodgers said officials want to protect the Newtown school where the 20 children and six educators were killed, The News-Times reported (http://bit.ly/1amzP8L).

“It’s a very sensitive topic,” he said Monday. “We want it to be handled in a respectful way.”

Project manager Consigli Construction has barricaded the property and intends to screen the perimeter to prevent onlookers from taking photographs. Full-time security guards will ensure the site is not disturbed.

Families of the victims and school staff visited the site, but public access is barred.

The precautions exceed those at other construction sites, town officials said.

Jim Juliano, a member of the Public Building and Site Commission, said he initially considered whether the heightened precautions might be excessive. But he believes extra vigilance is needed to shield Sandy Hook families and the community from exploitation. …

Evidence that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was directly involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where Americans including U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens were killed, continues to mount.

First, on June 26, 2013, I produced and partially translated what purported to be an internal Libyan governmental memo which was leaked and picked up by many Arabic websites. According to this document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including now ousted President Morsi, played a direct role in the Benghazi consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene,” asserted the report, six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested. During interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members: